Student NameChick-fil-A and the MediaManagementInstitution NameDateSummary of the CaseThe media reported in January 2011, that Chick-fil-A, an American fast-food chain was collaborating with the PFI (Pennsylvania Family Institute) to sponsor a marriage conference. The focal controversial issue attracted many comments from the public when in June 2012, Dan Cathy, the chief operating officer declared that he did not a supporter of same-sex marriages. This was after the information that Chick-fil-A's charitable initiative, the WinShape Foundation, donated approximately 8 million dollars to a number of political affiliations, which were opposed to the LGBT causes. This prompted the activists to rally for protests and boycotts against Chick-Fil-A. At the same time, another team arose to counter-protestor in solidarity with Chick-Fil-A, by eating and drinking there. The boycotts led to a loss of significant business as National political personalities, business partners, and organizations both in support of and opposed to the actions declined their association with the chain. Chick-fil-A declared in a press a July statement in 2012 stating that the chain was no longer going to be active in discussion about same-sex marriage relationships, but was instead leaving them to the government and politicians. Taxation report showed in 2013 that the foundation was no longer funding all organizations and politician except one, which had faced criticism.Case AnalysisThe case involving Chick-Fil-A is a controversial decision making incident with the critical risk of losing the reputation and the entire popular brand. The communications on the media appear to be detrimental to the welfare of the Chick-Fil-A charitable initiative, WinShape Foundation. The decision to publish a press statement is a reasonable disclaimer following the decline of business and loss of partners as the consequences of negative publicity. However, it does minimum rescue of the Chick-Fil-A business because of the massive loss of funding as reflected in the drastic reduction in the taxes. Even though the issue of same sex marriage is a human right issue, every company and individual has his or her own opinion to reserve about it. The foundation should have been sensitive from the onset, to detach itself from the controversy by avoiding contact with the groups and politicians. This is because they are already polarized and the amount of funding involved equally sensitive. The public in the LGBT views their donation as reward for their position.

Similarity Between Chick-Fil-A and Cracker barrelThe similarity between the two cases is that they both involved public denouncement of same sex marriage relationships. Additionally, they both fueled public protest by the pro LGBT affiliates and counter protest by the people opposed to same sex marriage (Pager, 2009). The third similarity is that in both cases, companies and individual partners withdrew their contacts and funding. Similarity Between Chick-Fil-A and Cracker barrelThere difference between Chick-fil-A and Cracker Barrel is that in the Chick-fil-A situation, the case involves a free expression of opinion through speech, which does not extend to actual treatment of individuals based on their decisions. As an individual, Dan Cathy has a personal right to express his opposition against same sex marriage (Papa, Tom & Barry, 2007). In fact, the threat by the state to hinder the official launch of its new restaurants violates that Constitutional right. In the case of Cracker Barrel, there appears to be a clear discrimination. It treated gay people without respect and attempted to force its values on every employee.

As far as the constitution is concerned, everyone has a right and freedom of expression, against which he or she should not be judged. The social values are as aresult of peoples varried opinions. As long as none of the actions violate the rights of individual citizens, then the owner has no right to impose personal opinions on the citizens. In fact, a corporation should behave like the entire state. Being a public company, the corporation should allow people from all races, gender, religion, physical stature and sexual orientation (Neal & Johnson1996). If an organization is ready to mistreat people because they are gay, then the same organization can send workers home because they belong to a certain religious group. At the same time, nothing should prevent the owner from declaring its opinion about the situation.

The role of the social media groups such as tweeter, facebook and blogs is twofold. The first role of the social media...

Description: In communicating change and innovation in a company, the focus should be on creating corporate identity, redesigning the product and creating new and better business models (Law & Verville, 2011)...